Flexibility
Flexibility and fairness at work
The President: The General Council support the motion.
Mr Simon Petch (Society of Telecom Executives) moved the following composite motion:
(Insert Composite Motion 9)
He said: We have two main aims in moving this composite. The first is to get back on the agenda the concept of flexibility as a trades union, and the second is to deal with some of the consequences of doing this for our Movement. Let us be clear what we mean by "flexibility" and what we do not mean. We do not mean the Martini economy flexibility, beloved of so many employers; "You work anywhere, any time, any place, and you even sing as off to work you go". What we are talking about is the way in which unions are recognising the genuine complexities of the mixed pattern of employment we are faced with between directly employed and contractors, permanent and short term, full‑time and part‑time. The composite is dealing with the job changes which were referred to by John Edmonds yesterday. In looking at this, we have to conquer one of our own traditional prejudices, that in some way, permanent, full‑time work is better than anything else.
Given the way in which so many employers have abused other forms of work, it is reasonable that people should have done this, but we cannot hope to run an economy on this basis. If we are to be successful as unions, as all speakers have made clear, we have to be able to protect all our members regardless of their employment status. We can do this in different ways. We have to do it by agreements which provide for job security for all and which make sure that people exercise choice in changing employment status. We have to make sure, as Bill Morris pointed out yesterday, that employment rights apply to all kinds of workers and are not just limited in their application to one particular kind.
We have to look at how we can reconcile home and work. There is no use continuing to ignore the caring responsibilities which so many of our members are going to have at different times in their working lives. Whether for children, the elderly or disabled, they expect us to make sure that the state provides assistance on the one hand, and that we negotiate with employers arrangements which make it possible for them to work during this particular period.
We also have to address properly the whole issue of training and lifelong employability. We can no longer be wholly dependent on employers providing training. It would be wonderful if we could. I am very keen to see Composite 8 adopted but, equally, I do not know how many of us expect to see that happening. I think those of us who were involved in commenting on the European Union's proposals for the information society were concerned at the enormous gap between their analysis of the need for training for all, and their happy assumption that, for reasons that were not at all clear to many readers, employers would provide it.
We must accept that individuals will have to acquire some of these skills for themselves. We must work out how we can help and facilitate this process and, in that context, we should welcome the introduction of individual learning accounts which will go part of the way to enabling people to do this. We must approach the different professional bodies, look at the way in which NVQs develop and make sure that we give our people the proper opportunity to acquire qualifications and develop the kind of work that will be needed, particularly at Levels IV and V in the NVQ area.
We have to look at pensions. At the moment, we are faced with the artificial choice between the desirability of final salary schemes ‑‑ the occupational schemes which are wonderful if you do not change employment but which become very expensive when you do ‑‑ and the inadequacies of personal pension funds about which so much has already been said. We need to make sure that we can provide effective second‑tier pensions for our people. We must ensure that they are collectively based, and I think the achievement recently referred to in this area about the arrangements made for lorry drivers is something that we need to look at. We must ensure that there are proper employer contributions, whatever form they take.
If we are going to demand fairness at work, in return we must provide properly protected flexibility. Over the next decade, lifetime employment with an employer will become rarer and rarer. Increasingly, we will be the only organisation which relates to people during the whole of their working lives. They will look to us to find solutions to the problems dealt with here. Our success in meeting these needs will be the factor which determines not just whether our members will be able to survive this process, but also the extent to which we survive as effective and growing organisations for the future.
Mr Daniel Yates (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) seconding the composite motion said: I was aged six in 1979 so I was taught all about flexibility by a previous administration, the administration where the Iron Lady created a Plasticine workforce; easy to squeeze, easy to squash and easy to roll into a ball and throw away. I was not taught much about fairness, except by example. They showed me that the "haves" could have as much as they could grab and the "have nots" could get knotted. By the time I was training as a physiotherapist, they were showing me that it was fair for over two million workers, the majority of them women working part‑time, to be excluded from sick pay, maternity pay and state pensions. When I finally joined the world of work, there was another lesson in fairness with a familiar theme. It seemed that it was fair that a smaller lead core of workers received all the benefits and job security whilst the majority received short term contracts, zero hour contracts, lower pay rates and minimal employment rights. However, they did try to be fair. If you did not like that, you could always try the Jobseekers' Allowance.
That is their definition of "fair" but it is not mine and, hopefully, it is not yours either. Not only do they score low on fairness but their maths stinks. The OECD have shown that these poorly trained, poorly valued and demotivated staff actually reduce profits. Where is the logic in that? Even my maths can cope with the fact that if every part‑time worker was given equal rights and equal treatment with their full‑time colleagues, it would be worth an extra 10% to them while only adding half a per cent to the pay bill. That is what I call fair and making the books balance.
Since May, I have been learning about a new kind of fairness. The draft Directive on Part‑Time Working, the Low Pay Commission, and a proposed White Paper on Union Recognition have reassured me that it will not be another case of "lights, camera, inaction". The Government have hit the ground running, but now that we have seen their speed we have to check their strength. The TUC must work to ensure that the Government lead by example in Europe and Britain with their public sector employees. Before the recent 18 year Ice Age we experienced in industrial relations, the Government was seen as a good employer. They took the lead and showed the way, so now it is time for this Government to rekindle the flame and set the pace in employee relations, blazing a trail, not bringing up the rear.
We need better employment rights and the Government have to legislate it. We need a new culture of co‑operation and understanding, and the Government has to create it. We need a shining example in the public sector with the very best of employment practices, and this Government has to demonstrate it.
* Composite Motion 9 was CARRIED.